How do different types of organizations use social media?

HOW DO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS USE SOCIAL MEDIA?

Karolis Damanskas

10852964 Master’s Thesis

Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science

Supervisor: Suzanne de Bakker

Abstract

Since its inception, social media have posed several challenges for different types of organizations. Social media have become a major platform for expressing organizational position, engaging in PR, marketing, and customer care. While non-profit and profit

organization were historically fairly different entities, lately, there were some concerns that because of external and internal changes they are no longer mutually exclusive and

organizations, although are still different, engage in fairly similar communication activities. This thesis aimed to uncover those differences or similarities in terms of organizations’ engagement in several different communication activities on twitter by conducting a content analysis. The results have shown that non-profit and profit organizations were not different in terms of their engagement in PR communication on twitter and mainly used one-way

symmetrical communication. However, organizations were still different in terms of their engagement in marketing communication and webcare. Non-profit organizations employed less ethical two-way asymmetrical communication for their marketing communication, while profit organizations mainly used one-way symmetrical communication. In terms of webcare, profit organizations were far more active than non-profit organizations. This thesis

uncovered, that non-profit and profit organizations are different in terms of engagement in all 4 communication models when overall communication taken into account. The findings suggest that there are some evidences that organizations engage in similar activities, but overall communication is different.

Introduction

Social media have recently become a very important platform for organizations to express their opinions and basically build relationships. What make social media different from other forms of media is that an organization is able to reach its publics without having to pass the gatekeeping process of traditional media. Organizations are able to provide information on various topics, such as their services or products, in no time at all without being supervised by editorial staff which was present in ordinary media such as television or print media. Although this does not necessarily imply any changes within the organizations’ gate-keeping process, it enables organizations to avoid external ones to a certain degree. Since the

inception of social media, organizations have power to respond to particular situations and be visible straight away. For instance, organizations are able to respond to particular

organizational crises, provide information on them and make sure to be proactive to control the damage.

There are many ways of how organizations employ social media for their purposes. Social media are used for purposes of marketing (Mangold & Faulds, 2009), web care (Van Noort, Willemsen, Kerkhof & Verhoeven, 2014) and public relations (Curtis, Edwards, Fraser, Gudelsky, Holmquist, Thornton & Sweetser, 2010; Eyrich, Padman & Sweetser, 2008). It is particularly widely used for marketing communications. Mangold and Faulds (2009) argue that social media are a hybrid part of marketing communication and that it changes the one-way nature of marketing communication and enables marketers to engage in

conversations as well as gives power to customers to talk to each other. Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) also indicate that social media are often used for marketing research. It is a valuable tool to get to know your audience and organizations take advantage of it.

Web care is another major purpose of social media. Organizations employ social media to engage with their customers in order to solve problems, answer questions and provide general information when needed. This particular type of social media use has its origins in profit organizations but has also been used by non-profit organizations recently (Bekkers, Edwards & De Kool, 2013). It predominantly contains two-way communication and provides

organizations with abilities to engage with their audience rapidly and manage relationships without delay that was present in the traditional media.

Social media are also part of public relations as well. Curtis at al. (2010) indicated that social media tools are becoming very beneficial to public relations practitioners. It is also argued that social media improve organizations’ ability to reach their audience and increase public participation (Kavanaugh, Fox, Sheetz, Yang, Shoemaker, & Xie, 2012).

Mangold and Faulds, (2009), building on Boone and Kurtz, (2007), described all previously mentioned social media uses as being part of the Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC). They argued that organizations use a coherent mix of different types of

communication and apply them to reach their audiences and achieve their goals. IMC has been widely accepted as an integral part of brand development and external communication of organizations (Madhavaram, Badrinarayanan & McDonald, 2005). Also, research has shown that IMC has been a significant predictor of success for particular communication campaigns and was directly positively related to effectiveness and indirectly positively related to financial performance of the campaign (Luxton, Reid & Mavondo, 2015). Integrated marketing communication is an accepted way of combining several different communication purposes into a one overarching concept. It allows to take into consideration all external communication by the organization. In order to be able to test how different types

of organizations use social media, the IMC (integrated marketing communication) will define the scope of communication taken into account in this thesis.

Furthermore, for many years it was thought that communication of particular organizations is dependent on the underlying assumptions of the foundations of its existence. It was believed that there was a huge difference between organizations that have profit as their main goal and organizations that fight for a better tomorrow or a particular societal cause. As Moore (2000) pointed out 15 years ago:

‘the value that these [non-profit] organizations produce lies in the achievement of social purposes for which no revenue stream is readily apparent rather than in creating wealth for shareholders or satisfaction to customers, and second, that non-profit and governmental organizations receive revenues from sources other than customer purchases of products and services’

Non-profit organizations, historically, were aimed at creating social, political, and

environmental or any other type of welfare rather than focusing on issues related to their own marketing. But the situation seems to be changed. The non-profit organizations are no longer heavily reliant on governments and the gap between them and the profit organizations is somewhat narrower than it used to be. As Keyton (2010) pointed out, whatever the goal of the organization is, there is always a primary goal to maintain its existence. Since reliance on governments started decreasing, non-profit organizations needed new sources of income. Now, as well as the profit companies, non-profit organizations are largely dependent on the publics, which are their customers.

This poses some interesting questions to how this has changed the way non-profit

organizations communicate. For instance, non-profit organizations, due to the changed nature of income, might resemble the profit organization, because both types of organizations have

to ensure the engagement of their stakeholders. Holtzhausen (2014) indicated that non-profit organizations have to manage themselves and their relationships as profit organizations in order to survive. This would imply that both, non-profit and profit organizations, would use similar communication strategies since their primary goal is quite similar. Furthermore, this would include all types of communication, and therefore social media are not an exclusion. In a world where non-profit and profit organization not only coexist, but also interact and

compete, it is natural that non-profit organizations are likely to mimic profit organizations in order to parallel themselves against them. Nah and Saxton (2012) indicated that non-profit organizations adapt certain social media practices due to the external pressures. For example, non-profit organizations seem to engage their stakeholders. Therefore, adaptation of

techniques used by profit organization, and use of social media for PR, marketing purposes and webcare in a manner dictated by the profit organizations is a very likely scenario for today’s non-profit organizations. It is in line with Dolnicar and Lazarevski, (2009) who identified that the most important marketing issue for non-profit organizations was to

promote the organization to its publics rather than to focus on particular issues (organization cantered view). This means that non-profit organizations are likely to employ techniques used by profit organizations, because they are usually focused on promoting activities.

Furthermore, non-profit organizations are prone to focus on marketing which is similar to the profit organizations due to the necessity to be visible. As it was mentioned earlier, non-profit organizations, historically, were aimed at creating social, political, and environmental or any other type of welfare rather than focusing on activities mainly used by profit organizations. Therefore, as the nature of non-profit organizations communication have changed, it is important to research the current state of it.

Previous research has indicated that more than 60% of organizations use social media for their business purposes (Kim, Chun, Kwak & Nam, 2014). While there were many studies

(Curtis et al., 2010; Holtzhausen, 2014; Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012) on each type of

organizations, there were no studies that benchmarked non-profit and for profit organizations against each other. Since social media have created new challenges for the organizations to cope with such as increased interactivity, unpredictability, and gave its audiences an easier way to reach them (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), it is important to do so. Furthermore, it is important to establish how these organizations compare against each other and to investigate whether the separation between them is visible in terms of communication on social media and whether it is a useful distinction. Also, this thesis will shed some light on how society should perceive organizations and will provide a quantitative analysis of communication that will help evaluating how ethically organization communicate and how that suits their

identity. The main challenge of the thesis is to investigate whether there is still any difference between non-profit and profit organizations in terms of their communication on social media. The results will show if presumptions of two types of organizations are valid and differences in communication are present, or whether we should start looking at them differently than before. This thesis will focus on discovering how similar or different the profit and non-profit organizations are in terms of communication on social media. Furthermore, it is aimed at describing a current state of the use of social media and underline differences between its use cases by different type of organizations by employing well tested operational instruments. Therefore, the main research question of this thesis is:

RQ: To what extent do non-profit and profit organizations differ in term of their social media use?

Theoretical background

Integrated marketing communication (IMC)

Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) was introduced as an inevitable tool for marketing by Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn in 1993. Ivanov (2012) building on Schultz and Schultz (2003), identifies IMC as a holistic approach to communication. The main idea behind IMC is that communication to the public is coordinated between

departments and conveys a coherent message across all channels used for communication. According to Ivanov (2012), IMC has its root in American business models, where

departments acted as separate profit making entities and integration between different units was essential in order to ensure that the division is aligned to its brand and represents core values of the company. This could include anything from the right logos used to the very essence, such as particular type of language used in the message intended to reach the audience.

Since its inception, IMC has moved from a perspective where separate divisions of the company plan their communication and then integrate it with the overall communication strategy, to a more holistic approach, where communication plans are developed and implemented using guidelines and rules imposed by the organization (Ivanov, 2012). This empowers coherence among the media channels and helps to convey the message in the right (intended) way. This is particularly important in the age of social media, where information is updated 24/7 and particular issues cannot be anticipated and requires ad hoc decision making. Social media have particular implications for how communication is re-examined in the present. Saffer, Sommerfeldt and Taylor (2013) found that organization’s interactivity on twitter had influence on relationship quality between organization and customer. The relationships between organizations and their publics were significantly better of those

companies that used interactive communication in comparison to the organizations that engaged in non-interactive communication. While interactivity is fairly usual in web care, public relations had to adjust to the rapidness of the platform, because as identified by Johnson and Halegoua, (2015), social media have far higher chances to engage society than other types of media, which implies a two-way communication nature which is historically not the most prominent type of PR. This suggests that social media have ability to influence and change the way organizations engage in communication activities.

Mangold and Faulds (2009), building on the ideas of Boone and Kurtz (2007), have argued that IMC implies coherence between messages having different origins and aims, such as marketing communication and PR. The underlying assumption behind this is that a consistent message is beneficial for an organization to achieve its goals and allows various sized

organizations to maintain their integrity in terms of their customers and audience.

Organizations are able to control, combine, and coordinate their communication, which in part provides them with a ‘safety net’. Therefore, building on the ideas of IMC, different types of social media use, such as PR, marketing communication, and webcare, should convey messages which are coherent between each other and correspond to the overall perception and rules of organizational communication within and without the organization, and therefore allow us to not only examine separate types of communication types, but also to generalize all available types of communication on social media under one umbrella term (IMC) and use them as a grand sum of organizational communication. This implies that the overall sum of communications should represent the organizations itself. Building on the idea, that the integration between different types of communication is in place, it is expected that it will be possible to compare how overall communication of non-profit and profit organizations compare to each other in terms of 4 communication models used by them.

Four models of PR

Grunig and Grunig, (1998), well before the inception of the popular social media channels, have argued for a more integrated communication perspective in organizations. The IMC, or Integrated Marketing Communications, as described by Mangold and Faulds, (2009),

represents a version of integrated communication described by Grunig and Grunig, (1998). This thesis will further build upon the ideas of Grunig and Grunig and will be applied to the social media.

Grunig and Hunt, (1984) described 4 main streams of communication between organization and its publics. Primarily, these ideas were focused on the public relations only, but this thesis aims to apply these models to the Integrated Marketing Communication on social media as well. The first of the models, press agentry model, is a type of communication in which a PR message does not necessarily contains any truth and is aimed to fulfil certain goals. It is one-way asymmetrical communication. Lying about your competitors to gain more power would fall within this communication model. This type of communication is used to manipulate and persuade people and is considered unethical. Second, the public information model, is a shift towards more ethical one-way symmetrical communication which entails truth and is aimed at informing people on the matter. Press release containing organizational information would fall within this type of communication. Third, the two-way asymmetrical model, stands for the communication where organizations research their publics and engage in dialogue in particular way to persuade their publics. This model, although is engaging the public, is considered to be less ethical than symmetrical models. Engaging people for marketing purposes would fall within this category. The fourth and most discussed, two-way symmetrical model takes place when organization engages in a dialogue with publics and negotiates with them. This model encompasses communication which is

balanced between both parties and is considered very ethical. All four models entail

properties that are measured on 2 separate axes. First axis, namely symmetry, identifies how truthful and symmetrical is communication between organization and its publics. Naturally, symmetrical model entails more ethical communication and stands for right intentions, while asymmetrical is more related with persuasion and particular goals that are hidden behind the communication. Second axis, namely one-way and two-way, identifies whether

communication entails any intended interaction between organizations and its publics. The one-way and two-way categorization will be prominent in hypotheses, where one-way will represents press agentry and public information models and two-way represents two-way symmetrical and two-way asymmetrical models.

The categorization of four models of communication is central in this thesis, because they will allow to assess how similar or different communications on social media are. The four models were already used in previous research (Edman, 2010) and proved to be a useful tool to assess communication since it is fairly easy to interpret messages using detailed

explanations (See Edman’s (2010) codebook) of the models. Edman (2010) used the 4 communication models to assess relationship between corporations and their publics on twitter and found that more than 44% of tweets contained two-way nature (they were replies). Furthermore, it is a well-tested communication model that has proved its influence in

scientific literature (Lovejoy, Waters & Saxton, 2012). This should provide empirically valid findings that can be extrapolated to a wider range of cases.

The previously mentioned 4 models of communication will allow assessing how

communication is practiced on social media. The communication will be measured on 2 dimensions, namely, symmetry (symmetrical or asymmetrical) and the level of interaction

(one-way or two-way). This will allow us to measure and benchmark different types of communication against each other.

Type of organization

According to Hull and Lio (2006), while the two types of organizations are different in their initial motivation in general, there are some overlapping parts between them. For example, for both types of organizations there are financial constraints that can be posed by the

services that they provide. Both types of organizations are subject to taxes, customer demand and outside factors, such as economic crises, that influence them almost equally. In that case, their actions are expected to be identical in order to reinforce the previous state. While historically non-profit organizations were perceived as particularly mission driven entities, this might not be that exclusive anymore. Austin and Stevenson (2006) identified, that while the main aim of profit organization is to make money and increase its business, there are side effects such as created job places or aid to economy in taxes. This sometimes exceeds the amount of public good created by non-profit organizations that are predominantly aimed at that.

The profit organizations are managing to fight for certain goals that align with their business goals and fight for causes that previously were mainly represented by non-profit

organizations such as charities. For example, organizations engage in CSR activities. Trapp (2012) indicated that it has become a little bit confusing for publics to perceive that profit organizations employ non-profit-like strategies to engage in social and environmental issues. This is a good example of how companies, using their CSR strategies for instance, manage to maintain their profit at the same time acting similarly to a non-profit organization and

emphasizing the importance of societal problems. Therefore, the gap between profit and non-profit organizations is somewhat vague in this case.

Furthermore, according to Keyton (2010), no matter whether you are a profit or non-profit organization, your underlying need is to survive in order to operate. Therefore, the very essence of both types of organizations is the same – to survive. As Holtzhausen (2014) indicated, non-profit organizations have to manage themselves as profit organizations in order to survive. This involves not only their appearance, but their overall image that includes communication as well. The non-profit organizations desperate to protect their stakeholders (vulnerable people for example) can no longer rely on funding, which is very rare, and have to manage and market themselves in a way to match profit organizations (Holtzhausen, 2014). This implies that non-profit organizations are not necessarily different in term of their communication when it comes to, for example, the involvement of stakeholders. Both types of organizations want to manage to get at least enough financial support and need their audience to stay engaged. Non-profit organizations have to manage to convince their stakeholders to donate or engage in particular cause, while the profit organization have to convince their stakeholders to use their service or buy their product. Both types of

organizations engage in convincing activities to a certain degree and it is hard to say the difference between them.

However, the differences between profit and non-profit have been discussed to a great extent in the literature as well. Hull and Lio (2006), building on O’Connor & Raber (2001),

identified that non-profit and profit organizations have ‘an intrinsic difference in motivation’ (p.53), or in other words, one is motivated by revenues and the other by social goals. They further elaborated on the topic and indicates that non-profit and profit organizations are different in terms of their vision and their strategic constraints (Hull & Lio, 2006). For example, while non-profit organizations are aiming at creating social value and are usually constrained by smaller budgets, profit organizations are focused on gaining profit and usually

have bigger budgets and have more freedom to implement particular communication campaigns.

Andreasen (2012) developed a list of possible differences between communication activities of non-profit and profit organizations. According to the author, the main differences in terms of marketing communication may lie in audience, tactical freedom, and target audience benefits. While the audience for commercial organizations are customers, the audience for non-profit organizations are usually people that are in particular disadvantaged situations or people that can improve the situation and people or organizations that donate money.

Furthermore, while profit organizations have few limits for their marketing strategies and can get away with almost anything, non-profit organizations are subject to public scrutiny and are entitled to behave accordingly. This ties into the previously mentioned tactical freedom that is more limited for non-profit organizations than it is for the profit organizations. The author also identifies, that target audience benefits are different for two types of organizations. While profit organizations provide short-term, immediate benefits (such as a product), non-profit organizations usually focus on long term societal/environmental impact, which is not necessarily tangible straight away. Shani (2015) identified that necessity to increase revenues and the need to increase brand’s visibility and demand lead non-profit organizations into using profit organizations methods for marketing. Therefore, non-profit organizations are likely to shift their focus towards short-terms as the profit organizations do. This can be explained by non-profit organizations wanting to be visible and able to compete with profit organizations. This implies that while there is a room for organizations to act differently, as identified by Andreasen (2012), organizations are prone to act in the same way because of the market pressure.

Furthermore, non-profit organizations are usually providing services while profit

organizations are focused on both – services and products. It is possible to argue that products are almost exclusively a thing of profit organizations. Therefore, non-profit organizations are expected to engage in service marketing activities while profit organizations are expected to engage more in services and products marketing activities.

Types of social media use

As it was mentioned earlier, there are three main use cases of social media employed by organizations. Social media are used for marketing purposes, PR activities and webcare. Marketing purposes involve activities such as product or service marketing, pricing information, and any other general promotional activities of organization’s offerings. All these activities presume one-way communication since it is all about dissemination rather than engagement. However, Mangold and Faulds (2009) indicated, that this has changed and marketing activities on social media are changing their nature from one-way to two-way communication, because social media equip organizations with possibilities to have conversations with customers or stakeholders. However, conversations do not necessarily equal dialogues. Organizations are usually using carefully thought through communication strategies when engaging in conversations with their audience. This implies a two-way asymmetrical communication model, because organizations are able to engage in

conversations in certain way that is particularly planned (as IMC implies), and use the data gathered for their further purposes to target their audience even better. They ask specific, carefully planned questions and engage in conversation according to the particular rules, which makes this type of communication asymmetrical.

The same holds for public relations. PR, as a matter of fact, was predominantly one-way communication (and still in part is) with the usual procedure of substituting press releases for

media organizations. Social media enabled both, customers or stakeholders and

organizations, to engage in active conversations online, and therefore influenced PR on social media.

The third type of social media, webcare, is in its origins two-way symmetrical

communication. Webcare is aimed at responding to and resolving problems of customer or stakeholders using social media channels. Its main is to understand and engage with the issue that arose.

However, as Van Noort at al. (2014) indicated, all previously mentioned social media use are somewhat integrated into each other and sometimes it is hard to distinguish what is what. For example, it is argued that webcare can serve as a valuable tool for PR, customer care and marketing activities (Van Noort at al., 2014). An example of that would be a case when a customer initiates a conversation about the product or complains about it and organizations use that conversation to promote their products or services. Therefore, the challenge will be to develop a comprehensive way (using previous research) to distinguish between these types of communication purposes.

Hypotheses

Mills and Plangger (2015) argued that organizations that provide services are more likely to engage in two way communication on social media. That is due to the fact that social media enable dialogic conversations and enhances brand-consumer relationship allowing trust building between each other. Trust is an important factor for service providers, since it is reflective of the quality of the service provider. Furthermore, the authors identify that this is particularly true for marketing communication on social media. Drawing on the presumption, that non-profit organizations predominantly engage in services and profit organizations focus on both products and services, the first hypotheses are formed:

H1: Non-profit and profit organizations are different in terms of the most prominent communication model used for marketing communication on social media.

H2: Two-way communication is the most prominent model for marketing communication on social media for non-profit organizations

H3: One-way communication is the most prominent model for marketing communication on social media for profit organizations

Yang and Kent (2014) argued that social media did not change the relationship between PR practitioners and publics for profit organizations. According to the authors, the one-way nature is still relevant and press releases are still the major force behind the public relations. Furthermore, the authors recognize the potential of social media to be used for two-way communication, but argue that no matter the type of organization – one-way communication is still relevant when it comes to public relations. Therefore, according to the authors, there should be no difference between non-profit and profit organizations, and both of them would use one-way communication for their PR on social media. This is in line with Lovejoy et al. (2012) who indicated that non-profit organizations engage in one-way public relations on social media and Holtzhausen (2014) who indicated that non-profit and profit organization engage in similar communication activities to survive. This thesis aims at replicating the findings of Yang and Kent (2014) and Lovejoy et al. (2012), and also at extending the understanding further by checking whether these two types of organizations are significantly different when compared against each other (previous studies focused on one or another). The second set of hypotheses is formed:

H4: Non-profit and profit organizations are not different in terms of the communication model used for PR communication on social media.

H5: One-way communication model is the most prominent model for PR communication on social media for non-profit organizations.

H6: One-way communication model is the most prominent model for PR communication on social media for profit organizations.

Van Noort at al., (2014) identified that webcare is used to intervene the customer

conversation or any other activity on social media when it is necessary. That would include instances when customers are disappointed and share their disappointment online. Also, webcare serves as a tool to engage with customers when they have particular questions or comments. The overall idea behind webcare is successful customer voice management. This requires two-way communication per se, because the conversation is usually initiated by the customer and the organization is usually responding to the question or complaint. Building on Andreasen (2012), the non-profit organizations are held accountable for their actions more than profit organizations, because the expectations for non-profit organizations are higher in terms of their behavior. Basically, non-profit organizations are expected to behave

accordingly and live up to social expectations. This can be linked to what Andreasen (2012) wrote about differences in tactical freedom between non-profit and for profit organizations. Non-profit organizations are perceived to be more socially responsible, and have audience that is far more vulnerable. Furthermore, the main goal of non-profit organization is to help. Also, as it was pointed out before, non-profit organization are mostly providing services as the profit organizations focus on both services and products. Organizations that provide services are expected to engage in webcare more, and since non-profits are predominantly doing so and rarely offer products, their undivided attention services suggests that non-profit organizations will engage in webcare more often than profit organizations.

H8: Two-way communication is the most prominent communication model used for webcare by non-profit organizations.

H9: Two-way communication is the most prominent communication model used for webcare by profit organizations.

Furthermore, building on integrated marketing communication and its premise integration across the organizational messages, it is expected, that certain types of communication, namely marketing, PR and webcare, when merged together, will form certain patterns of use of all 4 communication models identified and will represent the holistic approach of

organizational communication. Therefore, this thesis will pose the following sub-questions: RQ1: Are non-profit and profit organizations different in terms of their overall engagement in one-way asymmetrical communication on social media?

RQ2: Are non-profit and profit organizations different in terms of their overall engagement in one-way symmetrical communication on social media?

RQ3: Are non-profit and profit organizations different in terms of their overall engagement in two-way asymmetrical communication on social media?

RQ4: Are non-profit and profit organizations different in terms of their overall engagement in two-way symmetrical communication on social media?

Methodology

Design and procedure

The study was carried out by using twitter as a representation of general social media. The choice was made because of its popularity and ease of access. Manual content analysis was the method used in order to answers the study question and assess the hypotheses. The most

recent 100 of tweets were downloaded and coded according to the codebook (see Appendix). In order to download the tweets, http://greptweet.com/ was used and tweets were saved and converted into a SPSS file. The procedure was repeated for all organizations and organization name and type (non-profit or profit) were put against every tweet to be able to identify where it came from and which type of organizations it represents. The procedure was repeated for every single organizations and then all tweets from all organizations were added to the same SSPS file to continue coding. The unit of analysis was a single tweet.

Sample

The sample consisted of 50 organizations, from which 25 were non-profit and 25 profit organizations. In order to keep consistency and ensure that results are reliable, the source of lists of both types of organizations was forbes.com. For the non-profit organizations, the list of top 25 largest US non-profit organizations was used. In the very same fashion, the list of the largest US profit organizations was obtained from forbes.com as well. This method provided a convenience sample N=50 organizations. Out of 50 organizations, n=49 had their twitter accounts publicly available, of which 25 were non-profit and 24 profit organizations (for the list of organization see Appendix B). Most of the organizations had more than one twitter account available, therefore the corporate twitter accounts were taken, because they were available for every single organization. This posed some limitations to the study and have influenced the results, because some of the organizations had particular accounts to take care of their webcare activities and therefore webcare activities were not represented by their corporate twitter accounts accurately.

Type of organization

This variable was assessed according to the classification of forbes.com. The organizations that were listed among the profit organizations in the list, were considered to be

non-profit in this thesis. The organizations that were listed as non-profit organizations in the list provided by forbes.com, were considered profit organization in this thesis as well (for the list of organization see Appendix B).

Type of communication

For the purpose of this research, the messages, present on social media, were segregated into 3 clusters: PR, marketing and webcare and coded on a nominal scale variable. Messages were marked as PR when a message contained general information, opinion on particular topic or any other general communication that did not involve any promotion of the product or service (except release or lunch information). This definition is in line with Grunig and Hunt (1984) definition of PR. Messages were marked as marketing communication, when a message contained any promotion of product, service or organization in general. Third type of communication, webcare, was marked as a type of the message when there was a clear intention to engage in resolving an issue between organization and its audience about the product or service that organization provides. Although these 3 categories are mutually exclusive and a single message was not coded to more than one category, it proved to be challenging to ascribe a particular message to only one type of communication. Therefore, messages with content that could have been ascribed to more than one category were coded to the category which was more prominent (marketing messages that were present in webcare conversation were coded as webcare rather than marketing).

Model of communication

Models of communication, as mentioned previously, were assessed using Grunig’s 4 communication models. Edman (2010) adapted the models for assessing social media

messages and created a codebook to evaluate to which model particular message is suited the most. Therefore, this thesis used an adapted version of the codebook developed by Edman

(2010). The previous study used the codebook not only to assess the particular model of communication, but also to measure the interactivity level. This part was not necessary for the research question that was posed in this thesis, and therefore was removed from the codebook. The messages were assessed in terms of 4 possible communication models. They are Press agentry/publicity model, Public Information model, One-way asymmetrical model, Two-way symmetrical model. When a particular communication model was identified, the message was given a number 1 in the column of that model leaving 0 present in the 3

remaining columns that correspond to the remaining 3 communication models. This method, instead of a nominal scale variable, was chosen in order to be able to compare means and answer our research question. Press agentry model was chosen as a type of communication when there was a clear indication of persuasion or misleading information, such as ‘our company is the best’ or ‘25% off’, and the message did not contain any kind of two-way communication indications, such as a question mark, @ (at replies) or generally did not pose any sign of engagement or necessity for other party interaction. The second model, public information model, was marked as a type of communication when direct and objective language was used in the message. Such as organizational information, score of the game, etc. Although sometimes objective information can be used for persuasion, the coders were instructed to read tweets carefully and determine how objective the particular tweet was. Anything that is objective and is easily considered as truth fall within this category as long as there are no signs of two-way communication. The third, two-way asymmetrical model, was marked as a type of communication when the message contained demands for any kind of feedback or contained suggestions that organization’s products or services are useful. The main aim of two-way asymmetrical communication is promotion of organizational goals, while ignoring the needs of the public. This type or communication will include obvious signs of two-way communication, such as question marks, @ (at replies), etc. The fourth,

two-way symmetrical model, is aimed at creating relationships between organizations and their audiences, and therefore contains desire to improve and maintain their products or services. This type of communication was coded when organizations engaged in elaborate and meaningful conversations on social media, such as advices on how to use their products, managing customer relationships, answering questions. This type of communication included obvious two-way communication indications, such as question marks, @ (at replies), etc. The codebook contains a more detailed descriptions and guidance (see appendix A).

Dataset

The resulting dataset consisted of N=4900 tweets of which n=2500 were non-profit

organizations’ tweets and n=2400 were profit organizations’ tweets. There were n=1650 PR tweets, n=2339 marketing tweets, and n=911 webcare tweets.

Results

The inter-coder reliability was established by the second coder (fellow student) coding 10% of the data and it was high enough (α=.84). To test our second hypothesis that argued for Two-way communication to be the most prominent model of marketing communication on social media for non-profit organizations, the mean scores of engagement into 4

communication models were assessed. In order to only asses marketing communication, the data was filtered and only marketing messages were retained. Furthermore, the dataset was filtered further and only cases that belonged to non-profit organizations were kept. The end-result sample was n=1267. Furthermore, the mean scores were calculated for each

communication model. The most popular communication model for marketing for non-profit organization on social media was two-way asymmetrical (M=.61, SD=.49), followed by one-way symmetrical (M=.21, SD=.41), one-one-way asymmetrical (M=.17, SD=.38), and two-one-way symmetrical (M=.01, SD=.08). Therefore, the second hypothesis, which predicted two-way

communication to be the most prominent communication model for marketing communication on social media for non-profit organizations is confirmed.

In the very same fashion, the data was filtered to test which of the 4 communication models was the most prominent for profit organizations (third hypothesis). There were n=1072 marketing messages from profit organizations. The results shown that the most popular model was one-way symmetrical (M=.52, SD=.50), followed by two-way asymmetrical (M=.34, SD=.47), one-way asymmetrical (M=.14, SD=.34. Therefore, we confirm our third hypothesis that argued for one-way communication to be the most prominent communication model for profit organizations.

Furthermore, the independent sample t-test was conducted to check whether two types of organizations are statistically significantly different in terms of their engagement in the most prominent communication model for marketing for non-profit organizations (two-way asymmetrical) and the most prominent communication model for marketing of profit organizations (one-way symmetrical). The results have shown that organizations are statistically significantly different in terms of their engagement in both two-way

asymmetrical (t(2332)=13.74, p<.05) and one-way symmetrical (t(2332)=,-16,73, p<.05) communication models. Therefore, the first hypothesis which argued that non-profit and profit organization are different in terms of the most prominent communication model used for marketing, is confirmed.

In order to test our fifth hypothesis that argued for one-way communication to be the most prominent model used for PR by non-profit organizations, the data was filtered to include only cases that belonged to non-profit organizations and were coded as PR messages (n=964). The results have shown that the most prominent model was one-way symmetrical (M=.63, SD=.48), followed by two-way symmetrical (M=.16, SD=.37), one-way

asymmetrical (M=.12, SD=.33), and two-way asymmetrical (M=.09, SD=.29). Therefore, the fifth hypothesis is confirmed.

To test the sixth hypothesis which argued that one-way communication model is the most prominent model for PR communication on social media for profit organizations, the data was filtered to include only cases that belonged to profit organizations and were coded as PR messages (n=686). The results have shown that the most prominent communication model was one-way symmetrical (M=.60, SD=.49), followed by two-way symmetrical (M=.22, SD=.42), two-way asymmetrical (M=.10, SD=.30), and one-way asymmetrical (M=.08, SD=.27). Therefore, the sixth hypothesis is confirmed.

After testing for the most prominent communication model for both type of organizations, the significance of their similarity was tested. The independent t-test was conducted and as results confirmed (t(1431.96)=-.67, p>.05) the fourth hypothesis, which argued that non-profit and non-profit organizations are not different in terms of the communication model used for PR communication on social media.

In order to test the seventh hypothesis, the ratio score (number of webcare messages/total number of messages) was calculated. Out of n=2500 messages that belonged to non-profit organizations, there were n=274 messages that were coded as webcare. Out of 2400 messages that belonged to profit organizations, 637 were coded as webcare. After calculating the ratio, the results indicated that non-profit organizations engage in webcare (ratio=.11) less often that profit organizations (ratio=.27). Therefore, the seventh hypothesis is rejected.

To test the eight hypothesis which argued that two-way communication is the most prominent communication model used for webcare by non-profit organizations, the data was filtered to include only cases that belonged to non-profit organizations and were coded as webcare messages (n=274). The results have shown that the most prominent communication model

was two-way symmetrical (M=1.00, SD=.00), and that there were no other communication models used. Therefore, the eight hypothesis is confirmed.

For the test of the ninth hypothesis which argued that two-way communication is the most prominent communication model used for webcare by profit organizations, the data was filtered to include only cases that belonged to the profit organizations and were coded as webcare messages (n=637). The results have shown that the most prominent communication model was two-way symmetrical (M=.96, SD=.21), followed by two-way asymmetrical (M=.04, SD=.21). Therefore, the eight hypothesis is confirmed.

Table 1. Overall Engagement in Communication Models

Type n Mean Std. Deviation One-way asymmetrical Non-profit 2500 .13 .34

Profit 2400 .08 .28

One-way symmetrical Non-profit 2500 .35 .48

Profit 2400 .41 .49

Two-way asymmetrical Non-profit 2500 .34 .48

Profit 2400 .19 .39

Two-way symmetrical Non-profit 2500 .18 .38

Profit 2400 .32 .47

In order to test the four research questions, several independent sample t-tests were run to check how two types of organizations compare in terms of each communication model (See Table 1.).

The results have shown, that organization were different in all four different communication models when all types of messages were included and the overall engagement in each of communication models was tested between two types of organizations (see table 2).

Table 2. Significance of Differences between Non-profit and Profit Organizations

t Df Sig. One-way asymmetrical 5.610 4898 .000 One-way symmetrical -4.273 4898 .000 Two-way asymmetrical 12.224 4898 .000 Two-way symmetrical -11.739 4898 .000 Discussion

This thesis aimed at discovering to what extent do non-profit and profit organizations differ in term of their social media use and used three different types of messages (marketing, PR, and webcare) together with 4 models of communication to investigate the question. As predicted, two way communication was the most prominent communication model for non-profit organizations for marketing communication. Non-non-profit organizations were most likely to use two-way marketing communication and engage their audience on social media. In contrary, profit organizations mostly engaged in one-way communication when it came to marketing communication on social media. Therefore, non-profit and profit organizations were different in terms of their engagement in marketing communication. This suggest some interesting trends. As it was predicted, non-profit organizations focus on more interactive communication and uses social media to market themselves involving their audience in the process. However, two-way asymmetrical model suggests that non-profit organizations use

social media to engage with their audiences in particular way to persuade their publics and use/or use their feedback to improve their services or products. This is far away from a real dialogue and is not necessarily very ethical. This is in contrary to Andreasen (2012) which argued that non-profit organizations are subjects of public scrutiny, and therefore act

accordingly. Apparently, non-profit organizations use this type of communication in order to convince people to engage and that suggests that non-profit organizations are in some sort of a struggle to secure their audiences. Moreover, this would suggest that non-profit

organization are shifting towards more business-like communication and adapt profit

organizations’ strategies for marketing. Furthermore, profit organizations that used one-way symmetrical model as their main model of communication for marketing communication, engaged in a more ethical symmetrical communication. Usage of one-way symmetrical communication by profit organizations suggests that they did not try to persuade, but rather disseminated their marketing messages and provided objective information. The results were surprizing. This means that although non-profit organizations engage with their publics more, when it comes to marketing on social media, the profit organizations tend to be more honest and straight forward and do not exploit their audience for their own purposes as much as profit organizations do. This is in contrary to what would be naturally expected from non-profit organizations and requires further attention in future research.

Furthermore, the results have shown how non-profit and profit organizations compare to each other in terms of their PR messages on social media. Both types of organizations used one-way symmetrical communication most often and there was no significant difference between them. This is in line with Yang and Kent (2014) which argued that one-way communication nature extended from old-media and is present in social media as well. These findings provide several interesting conclusions. First of all, one-way communication might be the most comfortable way of managing one’s public relations and PR practitioners still have to

change their habits of providing rather than interacting. Secondly, as this was true to both type of organizations and there was no significant difference between their engagement in this particular communication model for PR messages on social media, this implies that non-profit and non-profit organizations employ very similar techniques for PR on social media. This is in line with Holtzhausen (2014) which argued that non-profit organizations act as profit organizations in order to be able to compete. Furthermore, these findings suggest that capabilities of social media are not used as much as for marketing communication. In terms of webcare, the results have shown that even though the non-profit organizations expected to provide mainly services and profit organizations to be both service and product focused, that did not mean that non-profit organizations engage in more webcare activities. This implies that webcare is already universal and is used to resolve issues for not only services but products as well. In fact, profit organizations were way more likely to engage in webcare. Social media, apparently, is a common place to interact and gain knowledge about the service and product and both types of organizations seems to utilize it, although profit organizations engage in webcare more often. The two-way symmetrical communication indicates that organizations tend to engage in meaningful and dialogic conversations and try to resolve issues while engaging with their publics. This is a perfect scenario for customers. Reaching out to the organizations of their interest has now become easier than ever. From the other side of view, organizations have far easier way to resolve customer issues that they have ever had. The findings imply that profit organization are more interested in resolving and engaging their publics. This could mean two things. First of all, it could mean that the profit organization are more concerned about their customers being happy with their products. Secondly, it could also mean that there are less inquiries from the non-profit organizations’ customers.

Furthermore, the overall engagement in 4 communication model was checked by testing to what extent organizations were different in engagement in each model. Knowing that

organizations engaged in similar PR activities and used the very same communication model, but were different in terms of marketing and webcare, it was possible to expect that this will carry on in the larger scale. As it turned out, organization were statistically significantly different in terms of their engagement in every single communication model. This in part suggests that 4 models of communication might not be the best instrument to test IMC and that its integrations across channels lie in the content rather than form of the message. On the overall scale, non-profit organization engage in one-way asymmetrical and two-way

asymmetrical communication model statistically significantly more than profit organizations. Furthermore, profit organizations engage in one-way symmetrical and two-way symmetrical statistically significantly more than non-profits. These findings suggest some interesting conclusions. First of all, non-profit organizations do not live up to the expectations to engage into a more ethical communication and engage in asymmetrical communication significantly more than profit organizations. Secondly, profit organizations use more ethical ways of interaction with their audience. These finding are the complete opposites of what is expected from organizations, and pose some interesting questions, such as how communication on social media corresponds to the overall idea of non-profit and profit organizations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this thesis aimed at answering to what extent do non-profit and profit organizations differ in term of their social media use and found that organizations are not different in terms of their engagement in PR on social media. However, non-profit

organizations are significantly different from profit organizations when they use social media for marketing and webcare communication. In terms of overall engagement in overall

communication on social media, non-profit and profit organizations are significantly different regarding all 4 communication models. While this thesis proved that organizations still engage in fairly different communication activities and their assimilation is not necessarily present in terms of their communication on social media, there are some implications that have to be taken into account. For example, the fact that profit organizations are using significantly more symmetrical communication than non-profit organizations should be further explored.

Limitations

As it was mentioned before, diversity of available twitter accounts per organizations have influenced the results. Some organizations have several organizational accounts that served for particular purpose, and therefore the corporate twitter account did not represent it. Future studies should consider including more account or perhaps even broadening the scope outside of twitter. This would have required much more time, which is another limitation of this study. Furthermore, distinction between different types of messages proved to be a challenge and further developments for the codebook that was used could eliminate some of the

Bibliography:

Andreasen, A. R. (2012). Rethinking the relationship between social/nonprofit marketing and commercial marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,31(1), 36-41.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei‐Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 30(1), 1-22.

Bekkers, V., Edwards, A., & de Kool, D. (2013). Social media monitoring: Responsive governance in the shadow of surveillance?. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 335-342.

Boone, L. E., & Kurtz, D. L. (2007). Contemporary Marketing. Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, K. L., Gudelsky, S., Holmquist, J., Thornton, K., & Sweetser, K. D. (2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit

organizations. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 90-92.

Dolnicar, S., & Lazarevski, K. (2009). Marketing in non-profit organizations: an international perspective. International marketing review, 26(3), 275-291.

Edman, H. (2010). Twittering to the top: a content analysis of corporate tweets to measure organization-public relationships (Unpublished Master's thesis). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA.

Eyrich, N., Padman, M. L., & Sweetser, K. D. (2008). PR practitioners’ use of social media tools and communication technology. Public relations review,34(4), 412-414. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1998). The relationship between public relations and

marketing in excellent organizations: evidence from the IABC study.Journal of marketing communications, 4(3), 141-162.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations (Vol. 343). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Holtzhausen, L. (2014). Non-profit organizations bridging the communication divide in a complex South Africa. Public Relations Review, 40(2), 286-293.

Hull, C. E., & Lio, B. H. (2006). Innovation in non-profit and for-profit organizations: Visionary, strategic, and financial considerations. Journal of Change

Management, 6(1), 53-65.

Ivanov, A. E. (2012). The Internet‘s impact on integrated marketing communication. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 536-542.

Johnson, B., & Halegoua, G. (2015). Can Social Media Save a Neighborhood Organization? Planning Practice & Research, 30(3), 248-269.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.

Kavanaugh, A. L., Fox, E. A., Sheetz, S. D., Yang, S., Li, L. T., Shoemaker, D. J. & Xie, L. (2012). Social media use by government: From the routine to the critical. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 480-491.

Keyton, J. (2010). Communication and organizational culture: A key to understanding work experiences. Sage Publications.

Kim, D., Chun, H., Kwak, Y., & Nam, Y. (2014). The Employment of Dialogic Principles in Website, Facebook, and Twitter Platforms of Environmental Nonprofit

Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: how nonprofit organizations use social media*. Journal of Computer‐Mediated

Communication, 17(3), 337-353.

Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313-318.

Luxton, S., Reid, M., & Mavondo, F. (2015). Integrated marketing communication capability and brand performance. Journal of Advertising, 44(1), 37-46.

Madhavaram, S., Badrinarayanan, V., & McDonald, R. E. (2005). Integrated marketing communication (IMC) and brand identity as critical components of brand equity strategy: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of

advertising, 34(4), 69-80.

Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business horizons, 52(4), 357-365.

Mills, A. J., & Plangger, K. (2015). Social media strategy for online service brands. The Service Industries Journal, (ahead-of-print), 1-16.

Moore, M. H. (2000). Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(suppl 1), 183-208.

Nah, S., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by nonprofit organizations. New Media & Society, 1461444812452411.

O’Connor, J. and Raber, R.W. (2001). The best of both worlds, Association Management, 1 May, pp. 28–36.

Saffer, A. J., Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Taylor, M. (2013). The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 213-215.

Schultz, D. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Lauterborn, R. F. (1993). Integrated marketing communication: Pulling it together and making it work. IL: NTC.

Schultz, D., & Schultz, H. (2003). IMC, the next generation: five steps for delivering value and measuring returns using marketing communication. McGraw Hill Professional.

Shani, D. (2015). Sport marketing and non profit marketing-perfect together. International review on public and nonprofit marketing: official publication of the International Association on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 12(2), 93-95.

Trapp, N. L. (2012). Corporation as climate ambassador: Transcending business sector boundaries in a Swedish CSR campaign. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 458-465. Van Noort, G., Willemsen, L. M., Kerkhof, P., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2014). Webcare as an integrative tool for customer care, reputation management, and online marketing: a literature review. Integrated communications in the postmodern era, 77-99.

Yang, A., & Kent, M. (2014). Social media and organizational visibility: A sample of Fortune 500 corporations. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 562-564

Appendix A

Codebook

A. Please identify which type of organization you are coding. Information should be taken from the forbes.com provided list of organizations. Please choose only ONE answer:

 Non-profit  Profit

B. Types of communication:  PR

Please tick PR when a message contain general information, opinion on particular topic or any other general communication that does not involve any promotion of the product or service (except release or lunch information)

 Marketing

Please tick when a message contains any promotion of product, service or organization in general.

 Webcare

Please tick when there is a clear intention to engage in resolving an issue between organization and its audience about the product or service that organization provides. The main variable – Models of communication – will be coded using adjusted items introduced by Edman (2010).

C. Please read each tweet separately and identify which of the following PR model the particular tweet suits best. Please identify only ONE of the models. If there are two or more models that could be identified – please identify the MOST suitable one.

 Press Agentry/Publicity (one-way asymmetrical). Tick the box if a tweet corresponds to the following:

One-way communication with persuasive language: This type of message try to convince people to buy a product or service that a company offers. This includes promotions and offers such as ‘15% off’. This type of PR can also be recognized from biased statements such as ‘best offer ever’ or ‘best in the city’. This type of post does not try to communicate with others using @replies.

 Public Information (one-way symmetrical). Tick the box if a tweet corresponds to the following:

One-way communication that uses direct and objective language. This type of posts do not contain biased information. Results of the sports game, information about delayed flights etc. should be included in this category. Even when a company talks about itself it could be fitted within this category as long as they tweet objective truth such as ‘Today is exactly 50 years since our shop has opened’. On the contrary, when a company tweets ‘Today is exactly 50 years since the best shop in the world has opened’ fits to Press Agentry/Publicity model. If the post uses @replies, it should not fit under public information because at replies

demonstrate two-way communication.

 Two-way Asymmetrical. Tick the box if a tweet corresponds to the following:

Two-way communication that provides feedback or suggests a certain product or service to be useful (most of the time will include @replies). The main aim of two-way asymmetrical

communication is to promote organizational goals, while ignoring the needs of the public. The only instance in which a post will not include a @reply and still fit under this category will be when the company generally asks all users for feedback about their products or services.

 Two-way Symmetrical. Tick the box if a tweet corresponds to the following:

Two-way communication that manages conflicts and enhances cooperation between general public and organization (most of the time will include @replies): Two-way symmetrical posts will be representative of the aim to create a long-term relationship that is beneficial for both sides. This kind of post would include an organization’s desire to improve their service by fixing some problems that users may have, giving advice on how to use products, directing users to information, and having casual conversations.

Appendix B List of profit organizations

1. Berkshire Hathaway (@BHHSRealEstate) 2. JPMorgan Chase (@jpmorgan)

3. Exxon Mobil (@exxonmobil) 4. General Electric (@generalelectric) 5. Wells Fargo (@WellsFargo)

6. Chevron (@Chevron)

7. Wal-Mart Stores (@Walmart) 8. Citigroup (@citi)

9. Verizon Communications (@verizon) 10. Bank of America (@BankofAmerica) 11. Microsoft (@Microsoft)

12. AT&T (@ATT)

13. Johnson & Johnson (@JNJNews) 14. Procter & Gamble (@ProcterGamble) 15. Google (@google)

16. American International Group (@AIGinsurance) 17. IBM (@IBM)

18. Comcast (@comcast) 19. Pfizer (Pfizer)

20. Goldman Sachs Group (@GoldmanSachs) 21. MetLife (@MetLife)

22. General Motors (@GM)

23. UnitedHealth Group (@UnitedHealthGrp) 24. Intel (@intel)

List of non-profit organizations 1. United Way (@UnitedWay)

2. Salvation Army(@SalvationArmyUS) 3. Feeding America (@FeedingAmerica) 4. Task Force for Global Health (@TFGHer)

5. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (@StJudeResearch) 6. YMCA of the USA (@ymca)

7. Goodwill Industries International (@StJudeResearch) 8. Food for the Poor (@FoodForThePoor)

9. Direct Relief (@DirectRelief)

10. American Cancer Society (@AmericanCancer) 11. World Vision (@WorldVision)

12. Boys & Girls Clubs of America (@BGCA_Clubs) 13. Habitat for Humanity International (@habitat_org) 14. Compassion International (@compassion)

15. Catholic Charities USA (@CCharitiesUSA) 16. Red Cross (@RedCross)

17. Lutheran Services in America (@lutheransvcs)

18. Patient Access Network Foundation (@PAN_Foundation) 19. Mayo Clinic (@MayoClinic)

20. United States Fund for UNICEF (@unicefusa) 21. Nature Conservancy (@nature_org)

22. AmeriCares Foundation (@AmeriCares)

23. American Heart Association (@American_Heart) 24. Cru (@crutweets)